May 5, 2005: CPS seeks clarification from CBI on the implications of the 2004 HC judgement on Quattrocchi’s accounts.

May 27, 2005: CBI responds to CPS stating there is ample evidence against Quattrocchi; that the High Court had let off public servants but observed there was a prima facie case against others, including Quattrocchi.

July 11, 2005: CBI writes to the UK Home Office pointing out that the second High Court judgement of May 2005 also had no impact on the case against Quattrocchi and the restraint orders should continue.

October 2, 2005: CBI again writes to British Home Office informing them that the 2005 HC judgement has no bearing on the Quattrocchi case.

Soon after the de-freezing bungle, Dutta was taken off the Bofors case but not before he had stymied another suggestion from the CPS, this time for the CBI to obtain an order for attachment or forfeiture of his properties under provisions of Section 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Dutta prepared a detailed opinion vehemently arguing against the move which was subsequently countered by CBI’s Joint Director A K Majumdar in a 10-page note.

In it, Majumdar concluded, “In case we accept the advice of the ASG in totality and convey the same to the CPS, London there is a strong possibility that they move the court in London for vacation of the restraint order on account of non initiation of process under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC against Ottavio Quattrocchi.”